1

AMENDED ALD
- 090 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 14

- 2689

___________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CONCETTA JACKSON,

Appellant

____________________________________ On Appeal from the Uni ted States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Crim. No. 2:07

- cr - 00040

- 002) District Judge: Honorable Lawrence F. Stengel

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

January 23, 2015 Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : February 27, 2015 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM Pro se appellant Concetta Jackson seeks this Court’s review of the United States
District Court for th e Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s denial of her second motion to

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

withdraw her guilty plea and obtain a court

- appointed attorney. Because Jackson’s appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s
order.
I. In S eptember 2008, Jackson pleaded guilty to one count of using a minor to produce visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct. In her plea agreement, she waived her right to appeal or collaterally challenge her conviction or sentence. She was subsequentl y sentenced to 300 months. Despite her waiver, she filed a direct appeal, a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and an application for permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. All were unsuccessful. Then, in August 2013, Jackson filed a motion to w ithdraw her guilty plea and
obtain a court

- appointed attorney, which the District Court denied. Upon Jackson’s appeal, we summarily affirmed the District Court’s decision. See United States v. Jackson , 549 F. App’x 61, 62 (3d Cir. 2014) (per curiam). In April 2014, Jackson filed a second motion to withdraw her guilty plea and obtain a court

- appointed attorney. She also requested an evidentiary hearing. Jackson’s 2014 motion, while lengthier than her 2013 motion, set forth the same grounds for withdra wing her guilty plea that she advanced in her 2013 motion. The District Court denied the new motion in an April 15, 2014 order, relying on the same reasons that it gave in its order denying her 2013 motion. Jackson then filed a timely notice of appeal3

an d a response to the Clerk’s notice that her appeal was subject to possible summary
action. 1
II. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and will summarily affirm the District Court’s order if there is no substantial question presented in the ap peal. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. We find no error in the District Court’s decision to deny Jackson’s latest motion. The District Court noted that Jackson had already challenged her conviction and sentence with a direct appeal and a § 2255 motion, and corr ectly concluded that she may no longer file a motion to withdraw her guilty plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e). We upheld the District Court’s earlier denial on this basis, and we see no reason to take a different approach here. Accordingly, we will summa rily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

1 Jackson also filed a document apparently requesting that we revers e the “no

- contact with her children” provision of her sentence, which she states is unconstitutional. We have already issued an opinion agreeing with the District Court that “Jackson waived any challenge to her sentence and that her challenge [to the no

- c ontact provision] is meritless.” See United States v. Jackson , 549 F. App’x 117, 118 (3d Cir. 2014) (per curiam). We decline to revisit Jackson’s arguments on this issue.